Si vis pacem, para bellum

More on British Army reductions

The text below, taken from The Telegraph (accessible here), says just about everything I believe in as far as this issue is concerned. It is a letter from Brigadier DJ Paterson OBE, Colonel of the Regiment, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, to the Chief of General Staff, General Sir Peter Wall, KCB, CBE, ADC. The story, which appeared in The Telegraph, is available here.

Dear CGS
Since Trevor Minter and I met with you concerning the disbandment of 2 RRF, I have had a meeting with the Col Comdt and Cols of the Queen’s Division and held my own meeting with the more senior members of my own Regimental Council. As a result of this Consultation there are certain issues I feel it would be remiss of me not to raise with you.
As you recall, Trevor and l were bitterly disappointed with your decision and whilst understanding some of the constraints that you were under, we indicated that the demographic analysis that you alluded to did not meet our understanding of the situation.
As such, you undertook to forward the data that was used to select a Fusilier Battalion for disbandment. I understand from your outer office, however, that this data may now only be released to us just before the announcement in Parliament. This will give us insufficient time to digest and understand the figures before I have to brief the Regiment and I would ask that this decision is reconsidered.
At our meeting you indicated that the selection data was based on demographics and sustainability. Having re-looked at the figures available to us i am afraid that this simply does not meet our Current understanding of the Regimental situation. I am sure you will have seen the most recent Infantry Battalion Strength Report which shows us amongst the strongest in raw manning and deployable strength, with average F&C and indeed, the only Regiment growing in the next 6 months. Analysis of these reports over the past several years shows a continuous and steady improvement of our manning situation; a success story of which we are especially proud, particularly given our high operational tempo and often with both Battalions overseas. This record, current position and future potential stacks up very strongly particularly against other Regiments who have not been selected.
Additionally I, as Colonel, have the duty to tell my Officers, Warrant Officers, NCOs and Fusiliers why it is their Battalion, which at the time of the announcement will be the best manned Battalion in the Army, with recruits waiting in the wings, was chosen by CGS. I will then also have to explain to my Fusiliers in a fully manned Battalion why they are likely to be posted to Battalions that cannot recruit. This will not be an easy sell especially to the WOs’ and Sgts’ Mess and also to the MPs from our recruiting areas who will undoubtedly want to see the detailed data and reasoning. ln short, I need to be reassured of the veracity of the Underlying criteria for selection with data that supports that decision.
During the last Options For Change the Army Board stated that large Regiments were the future of the Infantry for all the Well rehearsed arguments of operational capability and sustainability; indeed DMA’s recent paper, produced as part of 2020 work, on sustaining Op HERRICK requirements reinforced this point. What has changed for that policy to be reversed and for single battalions to be created deliberately? As a Regiment with a ‘large’ history and ethos we have been working for many years within the Queen’s Division to move towards the direction of a single large Regiment. As Trevor Minter indicated to you it is what we want but, in our view, this will only happen if you order it; not necessarily now but by making it clear to the Queen’s Division Regiments that they will be told to amalgamate post 2014/15 This is also what the serving grass roots across the Division understand and desire even if some retired officers are rooted in the past. Such an unequivocal order will enable sensible and considered planning to create what is best for the Regiments, the Army and Defence Capability as a whole. Single Battalions fail to meet the criteria of sustainability and operational capability envisaged under the Orbat (Order of Battle) and tasks of the FF 2020 Armed Forces; neither do they offer the variety and career opportunities of larger Regiments.
I would also like to gain assurances from you that our TA Battalion and embedded Fusilier Companies and Platoon will not be cut to other Regiments nor disbanded and that the Fusiliers will be allowed to retain their traditional recruiting areas of Northumberland, Lancashire, Warwickshire and London. If you cannot give those assurances then I am in no doubt that they, too, will be picked off by the larger Regiments and that the Fusiliers will wither on the vine.
Finally, acknowledging that orders are orders, I ask for your support on some of the disbandment issues:
From a Regimental perspective, I do not see this as the disbandment of 2 RRF; rather the merger of our First and Second Battalions and indeed you alluded to merger, rather than disbandment, at our meeting. This is an important distinction as it will allow us to take a Regimental and Divisional perspective as we manage the drawdown. It will, in part, also ameliorate the pain in 2 RRF and allow us to tackle this challenge head-on as a Regiment.
That 1 RRF remain as an AI (Armoured Infantry) Battalion embedded in the Reactive Force. Their recent operational experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan and their reputation as the best of the AI Battalions in the current Orbat needs no further explanation. It will also ensure that the Fusiliers, as a single Battalion, will have something to offer.
You should be aware that Cols of Regts not affected by the cuts are already starting to make noises about securing this role for their battalions.
The cascade plan for the announcement currently gives affected Regiments approx 24 hours notice before Parliament is briefed and even this pack will not contain the detail of what is being termed, somewhat pejoratively, “unit deletions”. This is not long enough for my Commanding Officers to brief their men and cannot be right.
Both Battalions are heavily involved in Mission Specific Training for Afghanistan with Companies widely dispersed across Germany, the UK and in BATUS. I seek your authority for Commanding Officers to brief their own soldiers in a timely manner rather than they hear it on Sky News or read it in the Newspapers (which have almost got it right already through the inevitable leaks).
2 RRF are en route to Cyprus to become the TRB (Theatre Reserve Battalion). They must not be expected to disband from Cyprus with all the inherent difficulties of schooling for children, housing and other Welfare issues. They must to be brought back to England to enable this.
There must be a comprehensive and inclusive postings plan for all 2 RRF personnel, none of whom should be disadvantaged by disbandment. The sight of formed bodies of Fusiliers being forcibly posted to other under strength Regiments will not look good nor help with selling the fair criteria on selection for disbandment.
Notwithstanding the concerns above, I would not want you to have even the slightest impression that I am challenging your orders. As Fusiliers we understand orders: you no doubt recall visiting the PJCC (Provincial Joint Coordination Centre in Iraq) as COS (Chief of Staff) PJHQ to ask 2RRF, the TRB and right at the end of their harmony constraints, if they were able to go to Afghanistan shortly after returning from Iraq; they went. I do, however, have a strong conviction that in selecting 2 RRF for disbandment and in creating a single battalion Fusilier Regiment we are not best serving Defence, the Army, the Queen’s Division or the Regiment. If challenged or scrutinised by, for example the media, it cannot be presented as the best or most sensible military option.
Yours sincerely
David Paterson